Why did so many people vote “No”

Be as it may, I wanted to find out from a small number of voters I interviewed as to what made them vote “Yes” or “No”. As for the “Yes” vote, quite a number cited the fact that the clause on the land acquisition was a central issue. This clause, according to them, emphasised the taking of land which is now vested in the State.

What this means is that land shall remain the property of the State to be allocated for use to individuals or companies as the State so wishes. In other words, like the British say, their land is Crown land under the sovereign. Ours is State land.

The “No” votes were cast for a very interesting reason. Some said that the Draft Constitution gave too much power to women. They cited the example of a clause which abolishes the death penalty for women. I am sure the death penalty cannot apply to men only. In reality, the death sentences have not been carried out for many years.

Another bone of contention with some men, who either voted “No” or did not vote, was the increase of women Members of Parliament. Under the Draft Constitution, 60 women shall become MPs chosen by proportional representation calculated from votes cast in 210 constituencies for each political party. Not only that, there could be more women MPs if parties fielded women candidates in the constituencies or even if more women made it into the Senate.

If ever there was a progressive to women’s emancipation, this constitution must be applauded. The devil is always in the details which will confirm the realities of giving more say in politics to women. But this can only come to fruition if there is more money to implement the provisions of the constitution. There could be more reasons, than those I have cited, which made some people to opt for a “No” vote. There could be those who were against the land reform programe or who perceived that more power could have been vested in the president. With the advent of so many women legislators, can we expect the next Parliament to be more progressive in the laws debated and acted upon?

History tells us that, in some countries, where women were dominant, women’s rights laws were enacted. Several countries come to mind, that had women leaders of government, to mention just a few, there was Britain’s prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, who negotiated the Lancaster House constitution, that we have replaced with the new Zimbabwean Draft Constitution, set to become law soon.

Another woman leader was, former prime minister, Indira Gandhi of India. Although her legacy was characterised by her fight against the Sikh militants that finally gunned her down, it is known that she did a lot to uplift the status of women in that conservative society.

Although it was the prerogative of each individual to vote according to their conscience, it is still quite interesting to know the concerns of those that voted “No”. It is not going to change anything but when the laws are made in Parliament, they could still make their representations on those issues that concern them most.

Another aspect that may calm many voters who may not have understood the implications of the new constitution is that they will still have a chance of having everything explained to them by their representatives in Parliament or when the actual campaigning for the general election is underway. Many men are bitter about the maintenance rulings in the courts already.

They think that the laws favour women to claim a lot of their money to such an extent that they fail to have an alternative life with a new spouse or just to get on in life. These concerns weighed heavily on those who voted “No” thinking that the new constitution has removed male dominance in the scheme of things in the country. Two young male adults, who are professionals, admitted that, they did not go to vote because they were convinced that women were given an upper hand by the new constitution.

One would have thought that, since they were recently married, they were still in love to be afraid of the power of their respective spouses. The conservative nature of men is their genes. Male dominance still runs deep in the veins of some men.

On the whole, the new draft constitution goes on to address most of the issues that should put to rest all the talk about dictatorship, which are spewed daily in some sections of the Press. This confirms the slogan that has always been on the lips of our Comrades in Arms- that is power has been transferred to the people.

There have been judgments in favour of women in our courts which must be regarded as progressive. For example, women can register the births of their babies, women can obtain passports for their children without the father having to sign the passport forms, and women can inherit their parents’ estate even if they are married.

There are those who voted in the negative from being influenced by organisations that see nothing good coming from their own country. Unless something is approved by the Western countries, then it is no good at all. To cite that there was no time to study the constitution after four years of the debate was in the public domain, was just misleading the public.

If anyone did not support the Draft constitution for a lack of time to read the document, then it was unfortunate indeed. It was not the intention of the whole system to deny anyone the right to go through the document. Now, a chance will be coming shortly for the members of various parties to choose candidates to represent them in various constituencies. That must be done peacefully like what happened in the referendum.